Inheritance
Notions of inheritance seem represented differently in women’s poetry than in the novels that we have read. It seems like the concerns of patrilineal lineage and the financial security of marriage is not so much rejected, but dispensed with and often criticized. Marriage is not the issue or the impetus for female interaction and legacy. The heritage in these poems seems to focus on two things. The first is a literary heritage, the connection to literary texts both classical and contemporary. There are classical literary references intertwined within the poetry of these writers, showing both their scholarship and their ability to “perform” the form and references that they have inherited through their readings. The second line of heritage is between the poets themselves, revealed in the fact that they read each other’s work and that they made references to each other’s works in their writing.
Because of this available lineage, it feels like this was one way the veered away from the demands of marriage. This group of women, being able to tap into an alternative inheritance, were able to have “different” types of relationships outside of the stereotypical structure. Relationships, or non-relationships as the case may be, that appeared to allow them a large amount of artistic freedom. Rossetti did not marry. Hemans had a amicably distant relationship from her husband which allowed her to live an independent and creative life. Elizabeth Barrett Browning married Robert Browning against her father’s wishes and because she wanted to. And finally, Katharine Harris Bradley and Edith Emma Cooper, the two halves of “Michael Field,” lived together in a romantic relationship with each other, shirking the heterosexual relationship entirely.
This “marriage-lack” allowed for an open space of artistic autonomy and creative exploration. There is much more time available to one’s own craft and development when one does not have strict domestic responsibilities. Issues of religious concerns such as death and the afterlife (Rossetti), passionate love and female agency (EBB) and female sexuality (“Michael Field”) are all avenues available for exploration and development. Many of these women participated in artistic groups and circles that also helped inspire and hone their artistic craft. They were prolific. They published. They participated. This life of artistic activity and stimulation created a space for independence and autonomy that other female writers could witness, could emulate, could attain.
This is represented in my opinion, in de Stael’s novel, Corinne, and the importance of Corinne’s heir, Julia. Corinne tutors Julia without Oswald present. It is a female-centric environment without the presence of the patriarchal representative. Corinne teaches Julia Italian and Italian artistic traditions of both poetry and womanhood. She passes on her knowledge to the next generation which is crucial in order for Julia to develop her own mind and spirit. The heritage is performed in secret, not under the male gaze, without censorship or witness, without the demand of the woman to perform the domestic. Freeing a woman from that performance, allows them the energy and focus to improvise, create, converse and read. It allows them to act as examples and witnesses to each other’s experiences and processes. It allows them to create and publish as contemporaries to be anthologized and re-read again seeing the influences of each woman in the writing and references of another.
Notions of inheritance seem represented differently in women’s poetry than in the novels that we have read. It seems like the concerns of patrilineal lineage and the financial security of marriage is not so much rejected, but dispensed with and often criticized. Marriage is not the issue or the impetus for female interaction and legacy. The heritage in these poems seems to focus on two things. The first is a literary heritage, the connection to literary texts both classical and contemporary. There are classical literary references intertwined within the poetry of these writers, showing both their scholarship and their ability to “perform” the form and references that they have inherited through their readings. The second line of heritage is between the poets themselves, revealed in the fact that they read each other’s work and that they made references to each other’s works in their writing.
Because of this available lineage, it feels like this was one way the veered away from the demands of marriage. This group of women, being able to tap into an alternative inheritance, were able to have “different” types of relationships outside of the stereotypical structure. Relationships, or non-relationships as the case may be, that appeared to allow them a large amount of artistic freedom. Rossetti did not marry. Hemans had a amicably distant relationship from her husband which allowed her to live an independent and creative life. Elizabeth Barrett Browning married Robert Browning against her father’s wishes and because she wanted to. And finally, Katharine Harris Bradley and Edith Emma Cooper, the two halves of “Michael Field,” lived together in a romantic relationship with each other, shirking the heterosexual relationship entirely.
This “marriage-lack” allowed for an open space of artistic autonomy and creative exploration. There is much more time available to one’s own craft and development when one does not have strict domestic responsibilities. Issues of religious concerns such as death and the afterlife (Rossetti), passionate love and female agency (EBB) and female sexuality (“Michael Field”) are all avenues available for exploration and development. Many of these women participated in artistic groups and circles that also helped inspire and hone their artistic craft. They were prolific. They published. They participated. This life of artistic activity and stimulation created a space for independence and autonomy that other female writers could witness, could emulate, could attain.
This is represented in my opinion, in de Stael’s novel, Corinne, and the importance of Corinne’s heir, Julia. Corinne tutors Julia without Oswald present. It is a female-centric environment without the presence of the patriarchal representative. Corinne teaches Julia Italian and Italian artistic traditions of both poetry and womanhood. She passes on her knowledge to the next generation which is crucial in order for Julia to develop her own mind and spirit. The heritage is performed in secret, not under the male gaze, without censorship or witness, without the demand of the woman to perform the domestic. Freeing a woman from that performance, allows them the energy and focus to improvise, create, converse and read. It allows them to act as examples and witnesses to each other’s experiences and processes. It allows them to create and publish as contemporaries to be anthologized and re-read again seeing the influences of each woman in the writing and references of another.